donal brown

In a concurrence dismissing a case as moot, Justice Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to suggest legislative remedies to the problem of big tech censorship. He favors laws that allow the government to sideline the First Amendment rights of private citizens to moderate speech on private platforms. In the past Thomas has protected the right of corporations to refuse to deliver another person’s message and in Citizens United v FEC voted for First Amendment rights

A San Clement, California teacher with a sterling reputation sparked a cyclone of contention in her community for her and her husband’s extremist views and her participation in the march on the Capitol on January 6. Many contend that conspiracy theorists and racists should not be allowed to teach young children. Others are saying she has never allowed politics into her classroom and should enjoy First Amendment protections of assembly and expression. (The New York

Frank Lo Monte, Slate, March 29, 2021, writes that the Supreme Court case, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District presents an opportunity for the court to deliver a monumental decision in preserving student free speech rights. Lo Monte, former director of the Student Law Press Center, writes that in building on Tinker v. Des Moines, the court can allow students to engage in distasteful speech so long as the speech does not substantially disrupt school

Parler, the social media outlet that markets itself on the promise of wide open expression, informed Congress that it has warned the FBI about violent content on its platform. It said it removed incitement and threats of violence before the January 6 assault on the Capitol. Many users were furious with the admission. (Ars Technica, March 29, 2021, by Kate Cox) Parler responded to its critics by reminding them that the First Amendment does not